THE TRANSHUMANISM SCRAPBOOK: THE NEXT GLOBALIST ...

Mr. A. sent this one, and I share it with you because they
highlight the deve,oping "memes" by which Mr. Global (to borrow former
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Catherine Austin
Fitts' term) plans to sell two agendas with one convenient (unargued,
unproven, and untested) selling gimick:How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate ChangeWhile the title says it all, the first two paragraphs give a glimpse
into the galloping nonsense that inhabits the vacant spaces of many
scientismists' minds:

The threat of global climate change has prompted us to redesign
many of our technologies to be more energy-efficient. From lightweight
hybrid cars to long-lasting LED's, engineers have made well-known
products smaller and less wasteful. But tinkering with our tools will
only get us so far, because however smart our technologies become, the
human body has its own ecological footprint, and there are more of them
than ever before. So, some scholars are asking, what if we could
engineer human beings to be more energy efficient? A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series of biomedical modifications that could help humans, themselves, consume less.

Some of the proposed modifications are simple and noninvasive. For
instance, many people wish to give up meat for ecological reasons, but
lack the willpower to do so on their own. The paper suggests that such
individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the
ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to
meat-eating. Other techniques are bound to be more controversial. For
instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic
engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less
resource-intensive children.

Critiques of the whole global warming model have pointed out that
the debate began to go awry when it was shown that the data itself had
been fudged in order to support Mr. Global's meme. When "global warming"
could no longer be sold without prompting critique or criticism, the
meme had to be changed to the much more tautological and useful idea of
"climate change", and idea which was so comprehensive in its prophetic
predictability that whether the data supported "warming" or "cooling",
the prophets could rake in the dough for their studies, and Mr. Global
could propose his draconian measures of power and control whichever the
case really was or may be. The problem for the global
warming-man-is-responsible crowd was that the other planets in
the solar system appear to be undergoing "climate change", and
therefore, we are looking at a physics phenomenon that is not well
understood, and certainly one that cannot at first glance be blamed on
mankind or its activity. And of course, the regulators who determine who
gets to consume what and in what amounts, will be the
bought-and-paid-for scientismist.

But wherever one stands on the issue of "climate change", what intrigues me is the technique in evidence, a favorite of Mr Global: when agendas are to be pushed, render debate even more problematical by combining
them: we need to tinker with the human genome itself in order to combat
"cimate change," One can imagine other such absurd combinations: we
need mandatory vaccinations to combat the spread of diseases that affect
the human metabolism that in turn affect the energetic environment
which therefore affects climate change and so on. You get the picture.
It's "transhumanism" meets "environment." It's a grab bag of tricks and
techniques. And in this case, the high octane speculation isn't being
done here.